January 2000
headlines and summaries

Return to January article index

Talks to open on divisive issue of gene-altered foods

January 24
Washington Post

Delegates from 140 countries gather in Montreal this week to try to write a rule book to govern the world's ever-expanding trade in genetically altered organisms--grains, bacteria, farm animals--with life codes that have been rearranged in hopes of improving on nature's work.

The official focus will be safety: whether these creations could accidentally cause illness or harm to the environment. But underlying much of the talk will the issue of money and jobs.

The United States and a handful of other countries that pioneered the genetically modified organisms (GMOs) will press for relatively loose control of the trade. Countries that fear their farmers will lose out by not producing such high-yield crops will seek stronger standards.

Some of the protesters who disrupted the meeting of the World Trade Organization in Seattle late last year were angry about gene-altered foods. The questions are so contentious that a gathering on the issue in Cartagena, Colombia, last year ended in disarray, with the United States and its allies arrayed against most of the world.

In Montreal, about 300 opponents of genetically modified food braved winds and sub-zero temperatures Saturday in a peaceful march near the meeting site. Starting today, the delegates will try again to reach agreement on a Biosafety Protocol.

The outcome could have a big impact for U.S. farmers, who last year rang up sales of nearly $50 billion with the outside world. More than one-third of all cotton, corn and soybeans planted in the United States last year were bio-engineered varieties. Big yields from low-cost bio-engineered products give American farmers an advantage and the Clinton administration is anxious to keep their markets open.

"The world as a whole stands to benefit from a sound framework for management of bio- engineered products," said David Sandalow, assistant secretary of state for oceans, environment and science and U.S. delegation chief. "The world as a whole stands to lose if we impose draconian rules that cost billions of dollars, for little benefit."

Since the 1970s scientists have been tinkering with the basic genetic codes of plants and animals. Suburban Maryland is a national center of the growing industry, which seeks to create better crops, livestock and drugs through the manipulation of DNA, the basic life code.

Creators of the products describe them as crucial to feeding an ever-expanding global population (6 billion and counting), lowering malnutrition and taming now-incurable diseases. With proper testing and regulation, biotechnology products are safe, they contend, adding that the world has no choice but to adopt them.

Last week, for example, researchers announced they had created a new "golden rice," that contains transplanted genes to combat vitamin A deficiencies that can cause blindness in millions of children around the globe.

With hardly anyone noticing, genetically altered foods have entered the mainstream American diet and the world's diet.

In the 1990s backlash emerged, led by consumer groups, politicians and environmentalists who say the products are being rushed to market without adequate testing. What, they ask, if there are hidden health risks to humans? What if crops modified to be pest-resistant end up creating destructive strains of "super weeds" in the wild? A report last year that corn altered to kill pests also killed popular monarch butterflys aided naysayers.

For now Western Europe is the world's stronghold for this thinking. Both in government and in private activist groups, people praise "the precautionary principle," a fancy way of saying "better safe than sorry." While U.S. officials argue that there is no real evidence that the products are dangerous, Europeans say there is no real proof that they are safe and have blocked entry of new products.

In the United States, activists are trying to promote similar concerns against what they "genetic pollution." Some have an anti-capitalist bent, seeing genetic engineering as a new way in which giant corporations turn agriculture into Big Business and drive small farmers off their fields.

The Montreal talks grew out of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. At the summit countries agreed to regulate trade in "living modified organisms" to avoid harm to health or the environment. So far 176 countries have signed on to the resulting Convention on Biological Diversity. Though the Clinton administration supports the agreement, it was never ratified by the Senate, so the United States will be in Montreal with observer status. But as the world's largest farm good exporter, what it says is closely listened to.

A key issue on the table is whether and how countries should be notified if GMO products are being shipped to their shores. In leading the Miami Group of big farm exporters, which includes Canada, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay and Australia, the United States is expected to argue for a comparatively free approach.

U.S. negotiators say they would agree to a formal notification system for a limited group of products that they consider to be truly living organisms--seeds and animals, which would be introduced into the environment.

But the Clinton administration is opposed to something Europe, most developing countries and the activist community also want: prior notification on products such as grain that are intended just for consumption. Japan will start requiring labeling on some altered product next year and some importers are asking suppliers to notify them about the use of GMOs.

"Every country has the right to know in advance what's coming into their country," said Jeremy Rifkin, who has led a campaign critical of bio-engineering. "That's the sovereign right of farmers and consumers, to be able to turn down anything they don't want . . ."

U.S. delegation chief Sandalow said that such a system would seriously disrupt world trade in food, requiring billions of dollars of investment at ports and grain facilities, and for very little benefit.

Adrian Bebb of Friends of the Earth International, an Amsterdam-based environmentalist group, sees the United States as merely trying to protect the export earnings of its farmers.

Clearly, the argument at Montreal will not not only be about science. In many countries, stoking fear of genetically modified food can serve old-fashioned protectionist ends.

The Montreal meeting also will discuss whether a new protocol should override the rules of the WTO and how financially liable companies should be if their products cause harm.

In Japan, it's back to nature / Consumers add non-modified products to shopping carts

January 24
Washington Post

TOKYO—Japan, the world's largest food importer, is in the midst of a struggle over how to treat genetically modified foods.

The government has gone along with consumer demands for labels on such products starting next year. This has prompted a rush toward non-genetically modified tofu, beer and soy sauce in local markets, and a jump in import orders for non-genetically modified soybeans and corn from the United States, the source of most of Japan's food.

The action also has generated anger among U.S. business and trade officials. "The Ministry of Agriculture is quite cynically using the GMO [genetically modified organism] issue for internal political reasons," said Dennis Kitch, Japan director of the U.S. Grains Council.

In the five months since the labeling requirement was announced, a major supermarket chain has started identifying its genetically modified products. The Asahi and Kirin Beer companies said they will switch entirely to non-genetically modified ingredients. And Japanese soybean farmers, who do not use any genetically modified seeds, are enjoying a huge demand for their beans--even at three to four times the price of imported American ones.

A Ministry of Agriculture official denied the labeling was intended to protect Japanese farmers. "Unlike Europe, Japan has a very low food self-sufficiency rate," said Kazuhiko Kawamura, deputy director of the ministry's food-labeling division. "For soybeans, it's 3 percent. For corn, almost zero. For Japan it's almost embarrassing and we do need to raise this rate, but it is clear we cannot fulfill domestic demand by ourselves. We are not denying at all GMO products."

In fact, the Japanese government is pouring billions of dollars into developing its own genetically modified food. But there are no plans to market these creations because of the negative public sentiment surrounding GMOs.

Some consumer groups campaigned against GMO products as unnecessary and not adequately tested for safety.

For now, domestic farmers are getting a boost from the dispute. A group of shopkeepers in the Waseda area of Tokyo, for example, is getting nationwide attention for their My Tofu project. For about $38, a customer contracts with a farmer to grow a plot of non-GMO soybeans. The 50 customers who have signed up will get tofu produced from those beans.

"Japan has a manufacturer-led system, so I'd like to do something to establish a consumer-led structure, something that we can do because we're a small shop," said Junichiro Yasui, a shop owner who is a leader of the project. "Wal-Mart couldn't do this."

"Japanese consumer groups are very strongly wedded to the notion of self-sufficiency, that Japan should be able to produce its own," said Steven Vogel, an assistant professor of political science at the University of California at Berkley. "They're worried about dependence, worried about health and safety issues and basically don't believe foreign agricultural products are as safe as Japanese."

The Ministry of Agriculture said labeling has nothing to do with safety. "It's simply to give consumers a choice," Kawamura said. For now, many consumers seem to be choosing naturally produced food.

Miyoko Miyajima, head of school lunches for Kawagoe City, said she is trying to make the food served to 30,000 students as GMO-free as possible. She said suppliers are asked to provide unaltered food. "We heard that frozen cut potatoes from the United States might be genetically modified, so we asked for domestic potatoes."

According to the Ministry of Agriculture plan, a list of 30 types of food will require labeling if they meet a certain genetically modified content, starting in April 2001.

But some companies aren't waiting. Throughout the Jusco Supermarket in the Nishikasai section of Tokyo, for example, small red labels are attached to food shelves. They state that the product is GMO-free, mostly GMO-free, or that its main ingredients are probably genetically modified.

Customer Kumiko Takeda, 26, who works part time at a bakery, said: "I won't buy genetically modified foods. They're scary." Terue Watabe, 65, had a different reaction: "I'm too busy to notice about those little things."

Some manufacturers are switching to non-genetically modified ingredients--even if it costs more. The import company Marubeni's latest order for soybeans--700,000 tons--is all non-GMO, and will cost 15 percent more. Two years ago, only half the order was for GMO-free beans.

GM food clash looms

January 24
BBC

The United States is set for a new trade clash with the European Union over the regulation of genetically-modified food.

Talks open on Monday in Montreal about a new treaty which would make safety the priority when countries decide whether to allow the import of genetically-modified (GM) foods.

But the US is expected to oppose the deal. It has made clear it prefers to discuss the issue in the World Trade Organisation instead, where commercial considerations would loom larger in such trade decisions.

The US is the world's largest exporter of GM foods and crops.

Environmental campaigners want to ensure that countries have the right to block the import of GM products until they have been subjected to rigorous scientific tests.

Clash at Seattle

The two sides last clashed on the issue at the Seattle trade talks in December.

UK environment secretary Michael Meacher said on Saturday he remained "hopeful" a deal could be reached which would satisfy environmental campaigners.

But David Sandalow, who will head the US delegation at the meeting, said "extreme proposals" would be vigorously opposed.

The proposed international Biodiversity Protocol is aimed at ensuring the safe handling, transfer and use of GM organisms which may have an adverse effect on the environment.

It was blocked by six countries, including the US and Canada last February amid concerns that it constrained free trade.

But Mr Meacher told BBC Radio 5 Live there had since been "changes in the international climate".

He said: "The US is changing, the financial markets are changing and Deutsche Bank have advised Monsanto to get out of biotechnology and reduce their exposure.

"That will make a difference to the attitude of the Americans.

"The US agricultural secretary made what I think was a very brave speech in the middle of last year warning that the US cannot force consumers to buy products they don't want."

Mr Meacher said the impact on the environment or human health of GM organisms (GMOs) was not yet known.

He said: "It is precisely for this reason Europe and the UK believes it is critical that countries should have choice in this matter."

'Reasonably balanced'

But Mr Sandalow said that while the US supported "a reasonably balanced" protocol, it had serious concerns about some proposals.

He said: "We strongly oppose some of the extreme proposals put for us by some countries that would require billions of dollars of investment in new transportation and storage infrastructure for the shipping of bulk commodities.

"It would include extra proposals to require individual bio-engineered products to be traced all the way from the farm to the dock where they are offloaded.

"It would be possible, but it would mean completely changing the global infrastructure for commodities such as corn, wheat, barley and soy."

Mr Sandalow said any agreement should not centre on companies' rights to trade in GM material, but deal instead with the environmental consequences of such trade.

Mr Meacher said he was "encouraged" by Mr Sandalow's stance but said the UK government would not be willing to sign an agreement unless the US made significant concessions.

'Power politics'

Charlie Kronick of Greenpeace described the situation as "the crudest kind of power politics".

He said: "This is not about environmental protection - it is about world trade. The US does not want any trade restrictions on its products."

And Andrew Wood of the Genetix Snowball campaign against genetic modification said the US was "caving in to big business" in opposing the protocol.

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds - Europe's largest conservation organisation - said the scale of international trade in GMOs meant regulation was needed urgently.

RSPB Trade Policy Officer Peter Hardstaff said: "The US appears to be using its political and economic muscle simply to serve its own commercial interests rather than the wider public interest."

Tony Juniper, policy and campaigns director at Friends of the Earth said governments should remember that the US had "no right to block other nations' wishes to protect their environment or consumer choice".

Canada growers watching the biotechnology debate closely

January 23
AP

Although farmers know the advantages of biotechnology, the European public outcry has made them wary.

 As the debate moves to Montreal this week, where 130 countries will try to devise biosafety rules, canola growers are watching closely.

 Some won't decide what to plant until spring, while others have already made up their minds.

 Pat Durnin won't be planting genetically modified canola this year.

 "We're going to take a year and sit back," the Alberta farmer says.

 "We're not willing to take the marketing risk in case this whole issue, from the consumers' point of view, is as big as it appears to be."

 No consumers mean no money. Consumers are always right, even if they're dead wrong, says Lesley McCallum a farmer from Aylsham, Sask.

 And it doesn't seem to matter that Europe isn't a big buyer of Canadian canola oil.

 "But that doesn't mean that things that happen around the world don't affect prices of various commodities," says Cory Ollikka, president of the National Farmers Union.

 "For crying out loud, when Yeltsin sneezes, the price of wheat goes up."

 It's been a tough year for canola growers. A glut in the market has driven down prices and some Prairie farmers have had to deal with drought or flooding. European boycotts and bans of modified products have also had an impact.

 Because the price dropped $3 a bushel, Glenn Sawyer says he's more than happy taking a year off from canola.

 "I'm not too worried," he says about the impact of the European boycotts. But he does think about the impact that genetically engineered grain could have on his business.

 "If I did decided to grow it, then I would make sure that the company would write in the contract they would take it."

 Sawyer also says labeling should be mandatory -- but for products that don't contain genetically modified ingredients.

 Earlier this fall, the federal government, Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors and the Canadian General Standards Board promised to look at setting standards for voluntary labeling.

 Labeling is tricky because Canadian grain wholesalers mix conventional crops with modified ones, making it difficult for food processors to know how much genetically modified ingredients they're using.

 They're in everything from cake mixes, margarine and whipped toppings to coffee creamers, candy, frostings, bread, sauces and breakfast cereal.

 The technology for genetically modified canola involves splicing a gene from a bacteria resistant to a specific herbicide into canola seeds.

 Chemically, there's no way to identify the oil as being from a genetically manipulated source because the DNA is in protein in the husks removed in the crushing process.

 Genetically modified seeds have passed federal regulations and are actively promoted by the industry but recent polls suggested the majority of Canadians think modified foods will harm their health.

 McCallum says she made her decision to grow conventional canola because she found it was a less expensive option than other methods.

 "However, in pinch, I would not be so high-moraled about it that I wouldn't grow a transgenic canola."

 Ontario corn farmers still strongly support genetically-enhanced crops says Anna Bragg, president of the Ontario Corn Producers Association.

 About 35 per cent of corn crops contain genetically modified seeds in Canada; with canola it's around 60 per cent. Genetically modified soy accounts for nearly 20 per cent, while potatoes less than one per cent, say agriculture researchers.

 Farmers' wariness won't be assuaged any time soon, says Alan Wildeman of the Food System Biotechnology Centre, a new research organization at the University of Guelph.

 "The specter that someone is going to use this knowledge to create things that are going to kill people is getting too much attention," he says.

 "I think that eventually the right information will be out there and the public will know a lot more about what the science is behind things and what the benefits of this technology will be.

 "It's going to take a while for us to get there."

Biotech panel appointed in D.C.

January 21
AP

A committee appointed Friday to advise the government on development and use of genetically engineered crops will include organic farmers, critics of biotech food, consumer advocates, scientists and executives of major seed companies.

``It is my hope that this group, which brings together people with a range of perspectives and experiences, will engage in the kind of thoughtful and civil debate on biotechnology that our country now needs,'' Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman said.

Glickman appointed former Rep. Dennis Eckart, D-Ohio, as chairman of the 38-member panel. So diverse are the views of the committee's members that USDA plans to hire a professional facilitator to help Eckart manage the panel. 

The committee includes representatives of the Monsanto Co., General Mills Inc., the Environmental Defense Fund, Organic Farming Research Foundation, Consumer Federation of America, Rural Advancement Foundation International, National Corn Growers Association and the American Farm Bureau Federation. 

The committee's first meetings will be March 29-30 in Washington. The panel is authorized to stay in operation for two years.

Glickman has also asked the National Academy of Sciences to review USDA's approval process for genetically engineered crops. Critics say the agency has approved new varieties without adequately testing their potential impact on the environment.

USDA is among several agencies involved in regulating biotech crops. Others include the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency.

U.S. to meet EU labels on GMOs

January 21
Reuters

The Hague - U.S. exporters are ready to meet the European Union's new one percent threshold on labelling food containing genetically modified organisms, although the system may actually heighten consumer fears, a top U.S. trade official said on Friday.

EU rules forcing food producers to label their products as containing GMOs if they cannot guarantee each of the ingredients contains less than one percent of GM material came into force earlier this month.

They do not provide for a ``GM-free'' label as separate rules are still being drafted on how to define GM-free.

``Our companies are prepared to meet the one percent threshold for incidental contamination by genetically modified material,'' U.S. Under Secretary of Commerce David Aaron told a biotechnology conference. But he said the rules were open to alarmist media stories or claims from individual scientists or lobby groups that products without labels had in fact breached the ceiling.

Unless testing methods were improved, ``labeling will actually undermine confidence in products, in government, and in the regulatory process. It will add to, not reduce, public concern,'' Aaron said.''

EU says consumers have right to know

But European food safety commissioner David Byrne insisted consumers had a right to know what they were eating and that labeling of GM products was ``a cornerstone'' in getting the new GM products widely accepted.

The European Commission has pledged to review the one percent threshold in a year's time to see if improved testing procedures make it possible to set a lower level.

Byrne told the two-day conference, sponsored by the U.S. government, his recently presented food policy paper, including a blueprint for new food safety authority, showed the EU was ``acutely aware of the need to have a coherent and predictable framework on GMO foods, animal feeds and seeds.''

Whereas Aaron highlighted the fact that the consumption of GMOs has never been linked to any ailment or disease, Byrne said European reluctance was based on a view that biotechnology had little to offer the food consumer.

``It has to be recognized that most GMOs currently on the market are not targeted to deliver clear benefits for the consumer, rather to provide benefits for producers,'' he said.

U.S. disappointed over EU food agency

Aaron said the new EU agency did not go far enough for the U.S., which would have preferred a more powerful regulatory body similar to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

``We are intrigued by the proposals...but disappointed so far that its scope would be limited to analysis,'' he said, adding that he believed that a loss of consumers' trust in the way food production is controlled was the prime reason for European skepticism over GMOs.

And he criticized the EU's stalled GM approval process, which it says has damaged the biotech industry in the United States, the world's largest grower of GM crops.

``The product approval system has effectively broken down,'' Aaron said, adding that the delay in authorizations ``amounts to an eternity when we consider how rapidly biotech products are developing.''

U.S. opposes prior notice for GM crop shipments

January 20
Reuters

The United States strongly opposes any attempt to require exporters to provide advance notice of shipments of genetically modified crops, a U.S. official said on Wednesday.

David Sandalow, assistant secretary of state for oceans, environment and science, told reporters such a requirement would "disrupt world food trade without (providing) significant environmental benefits."

Developing countries plan to push for the notification requirement in upcoming environmental talks.

Environmental officials from some 134 countries gather in Montreal this week to try to forge a Biosafety Protocol to protect the world's plants and animals from any adverse effects of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

The talks formally open Monday and end January 28.

A similar effort last year in Cartagena, Colombia failed.

The United States supports "advance informed agreements" for shipments of GMOs, such as seeds, that will be directly introduced into the environment, Sandalow said.

Genetically modified crops destined for food, feed and processing do not fit that criteria, he said.

The United States is the world's largest producer of genetically modified crops. More than half of U.S. soybeans and one-third of U.S. corn are produced from seed varieties that have been genetically modified.

In pushing for a broader advance notice requirement, developing countries have argued that some grain imported for food, feed and processing could be used for planting.

However, the United States has not seen evidence that would be "a significant problem for biodiversity," Sandalow said.

The United States is negotiating as part of what is known as the Miami Group, which also includes Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile and Uruguay. Developing countries are known in the negotiations as the Like-Minded Countries.

On another contentious issue, the Miami Group strongly opposes efforts by the European Union to address food safety concerns in the Biosafety Protocol.

An EU proposal to require documentation so genetically modified crops can be traced from field to port would require "billions of dollars of new investment," Sandalow said.

U.S. says genetically modified crops pose no threat

So far, there is no evidence to suggest genetically modified crops pose any food safety threat, he said.

Also, the environmental officials negotiating the protocol are poorly equipped to deal with food safety issues because they are not experts in that area, he said.

Despite the significant differences that remain, Sandalow was upbeat about the chance for success in Montreal.

Most countries agree on the need for prior notification on shipments of GMOs intended for release in the environment.

There is also support for a Miami Group proposal to create a Biosafety Clearing House to post and share information about the latest GMO approvals, he said.